"Prisoners of War " Topic

"This essay consists of three articles that examine different aspects of the history of prisoners of war. U.S. Soldiers as POWs describes the treatment of American servicepeople as POWs from the Revolutionary War to the present. Enemy POWs examines the history of how enemy prisoners of war have been treated during America's wars. The POW Experience uses narratives written by American POWs, particularly in recent times, to help understand the experience of modern American POWs.
Prisoners of War: U.S. Soldiers as POWs Although in ancient times wartime captives who were not rich enough to be held for ransom were usually enslaved as laborers by the victors as laborers, by the early modern era, with the emergence of centralized states and regular, professional armies, the practice had changed to regular exchange of prisoners, either during or after war.

In the Revolutionary War (1775¨C83), although higher©\ranking officers were usually exchanged during the war, the majority of soldiers were not. Because the British government considered the Americans rebels and refused during the war to recognize the Continental Congress as a sovereign government, captured American fightingmen were often treated like criminals. American sailors or seamen from privateers were imprisoned in Britain, sometimes accused of piracy. The majority of American prisoners of war (POWs), however, were soldiers who were confined under wretched conditions in floating British prison hulks around New York City. Many died, some escaped, but few accepted British offers to switch sides. Survivors were exchanged after the war. No accurate count was made, but perhaps more than 18,000 Americans became POWs. During the War of 1812, the legal status of the United States and its servicemen was not an issue; American POWs were generally treated properly and were repatriated following the peace.

The Texas War of Independence (1836) proved particularly brutal. Viewing Texans as rebels, the Mexican leader Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna refused to take prisoners. Texans captured at the Battle of the Alamo and at Goliad were executed…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Because the British government considered the Americans rebels and refused during the war to recognize the Continental Congress as a sovereign government, captured American fightingmen were often treated like criminals.

Sorry, but that is rubbish. Apart from anything else, why would the British exchange valuable officers, if they did not recognise Congress? Even signatories of the DoI were treated with respect, including those taken in arms. The simple fact is that the Rebels never captured enough British soldiers or sailors in the first two years of the war, for exchanges to take place. I suspect it also didn't help when Congress ratted on the Saratoga Convention.

American sailors or seamen from privateers were imprisoned in Britain, sometimes accused of piracy.

Only if they were captured in European waters, and only if they had no "letters of marque" from Congress.

The majority of American prisoners of war (POWs), however, were soldiers who were confined under wretched conditions in floating British prison hulks around New York City.

Ironically, they were put on the hulks because the main sugar warehouse in NYC, where they were originally held, had become overcrowded and unsanitary. And, according to military custom of the day, they remained the responsibility of Congress (which was content to use them as propaganda pawns); the British fed them despite being on short rations themselves much of the time.

In Continental Congress' defense, they had no money. The cost of supporting the prisoners was really on the (new) states. Congress had no power to tax or collect money to support the war, let alone POWs.

IIRC, Congress and the government were paying off war debts into the mid-1800s. Look how many of the founding fathers died broke.

Supercilius – Interesting to hear how the other side of pond is taught the subject.

What, correctly you mean? I don't think I've ever encountered any British person with an axe to grind about the AWI.

Holding prisoners on ships wasn't some cruel and unusual punishment meted out to 'rebels' it was common practice even in the Napoleonic wars, when they were used for French PoWs. Prison conditions for most internees were pretty dire everywhere during that period, prison reform didn't really get going until the mid 19th century.

Ships were ideal prisons insofar as they were difficult to escape, many people in that time couldn't swim, and needed minimal guarding by comparison to a land based facility, purpose built gaols were small and inadequate for large numbers of people, they'd have been fairly grim in the 18th century.

"Privateers of the Revolution: War on the New Jersey Coast" by Donald Grady Shomette is well researched and provides a history of the prison hulks in the last part of the book.

I would recommend it to anyone who has an interest on this particular episode.

Hey some Americans didn't know the Brits burned down the WH during the War of 1812. But for whatever reasons most Americans don't know there even was a War of 1812. Or even who the US Patriots fought in the AWI. I've seen too many "man on the street", etc., interviews. It's shocking !

We all know, who have a working knowledge of history.
That not only did the US "Rebels" fight the "oppression" & tyranny of their Red Coated occupiers. But their German Mercenary allies as well … "Long Live George Washington !"

In the USA, AMC, IIRC, had a very good series "TURN, Washington's Spies ". I enjoyed it very much. It only lasted 2 or 3 seasons IIRC. I have not heard it was coming back.

Too bad … the majority in the US, were watching current sporting events, what Kim & family are doing and HSN … Very sad …

US Patriots fought in the AWI

I've always found it curious that during the American War of Independance, when the colonists were rebelling from the King of England, Americans call them "Patriots." But many Americans paradoxically speak of the Southern people in the American Civil War as "rebels,"

Why can the withdrawal of sovereign States be labeled as "rebellion"? Rebellion against what sovereign? As colonies created and owned by the Crown, the rebellious act of declaring independence in 1776 is obvious. But as States within a confederacy of equal States, how does that become a "rebellion?"